UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger

from the this-would-be-a-mistake dept

Given the renewed attention in the Richard O'Dwyer case, it's good to see UK MP Tom Watson speak out eloquently against the extradition. Watson hits on a bunch of good points, starting with the fact that O'Dwyer was "hung out to dry" by UK politicians who don't seem to even care about the details here. He notes that the response is clearly disproportionate and then gets to the heart of the matter:

"Somewhere behind this case lie the powerful vested interests of the content industry. If they succeed in exercising their lobbying might by forcing the extradition of an able student to face trial in America, it will further undermine public confidence in an important treaty designed to combat terrorism.

"But let's also be honest about what is going on at the heart of this case: a generation for whom the net is not a 'new' technology are being hung out by an older generation of lawmakers who do not understand the new reality of the connected digital planet.

"Mr O'Dwyer's situation can be sorted out with common sense at the top of the UK government and US administration. But how many more bright youngsters will have their lives turned upside down because we haven't reached a new copyright settlement that understands the internet is here to stay?"

Of course, it won't just undermine confidence in the extradition treaty, but also in copyright law. After all, O'Dwyer linked to content all over the web, rather than hosting it himself -- and a nearly identical site was already found legal in the UK (which certainly suggests a lack of "willful" infringement, which is necessary for a criminal copyright infringement charge in the US). Either way, it's good to see more high profile people -- especially those in government, realize that the attempt to extradite O'Dwyer is a travesty.

Reader Comments

Another victory for Hollywood

...a nearly identical site was already found legal in the UK

While that case was one of many, the MPAA/FACT's losing streak seems to have come to an end today; TorrentFreak are reporting that another site owner was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud for running a linking site. Conspiracy to defraud is one of the most controversial offences in English law (among criminal law academics, at least) due to it being "excessively broad" and vague, and for criminalising an agreement to do something that could be perfectly legal otherwise.

There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to get him for copyright infringement, as that has much higher requirements. It may be that he is able to appeal the decision, but I'm not sure on what grounds; "this law is just wrong" probably won't go down well with the courts.

So, given this success, expect to see many more of these sorts of arrests, show trials and general bullying from the MPAA/FACT in the UK, unless or until a higher court finally gets around to sorting out this area of law (hopefully in O'Dwyer's extradition appeal next month).

Re: Another victory for Hollywood

I say let the content industry bully. All their actions are doing is creating resentment and alienating a sizable chunk of the population. We have already seen the out cry over SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA.

In Europe the pirate party is growing by leaps and bounds, and the green party is signing on to their values. In the US we have several politicians actually fighting for digital freedom and many others scared of what the population will do next. The greater the resentment big content creates the faster this will grow.

Re: Re: Another victory for Hollywood

I say let the content industry bully. All their actions are doing is creating resentment and alienating a sizable chunk of the population.

That's a nice sentiment, but doesn't really help Richard O'Dwyer, who is living with the constant threat of extradition, or the guy now facing prison time for running a website, or the thousands of people across the UK who are about to receive letters demanding money for allegedly file-sharing, or those in France or the US, about to lose their internet connections for the same, and so on. There comes a point where standing idly by in the hopes that some politicians will fix it all, is no longer enough.

Re: Another victory for Hollywood

At this point I would be more than happy to see the Big Content Industry go down and in a big way.Same as our present day Government who has shown the World more than once how corrupt it truly is.
I wish more people in our Nation understood what the present day Government is pulling behind their backs.To many Americans are just mass consumers who will never understand.
I for one would love to see a huge March on Washington complete with buckets of tar & feathers.

Of course, it won't just undermine confidence in the extradition treaty, but also in copyright law. After all, O'Dwyer linked to content all over the web, rather than hosting it himself -- and a nearly identical site was already found legal in the UK (which certainly suggests a lack of "willful" infringement, which is necessary for a criminal copyright infringement charge in the US). Either way, it's good to see more high profile people -- especially those in government, realize that the attempt to extradite O'Dwyer is a travesty.

Always defending the pirates, eh, Pirate Mike? The fact that his first domain name was seized put him on notice that he was infringing. The fact that he set up shop under a new domain name after having this notice makes willfulness easy to prove. Keep dreaming, pirate boy. Your friend is going down. If you actually cared about property rights (still laughing at your recent piece where you claim to speak for "true" property values), then you'd be glad this punk is getting his comeuppance. Fact is, copyright is the law. Deal with it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Respecting other people's rights isn't your thing."

You say that as if copyright is equal in importance and value to other rights, but it simply isn't. It's well down the pecking order, and that, combined with the ongoing abuse of copyright laws by rightsholders, is why it is respected so little.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

Funny how you keep talking utter BS abour the "law" and "property", but you did not bother to adress my questions in the other article about equating an IDEA (non material thing) to any material thing and claiming property right, you are a very DUMB troll/shill.

Re: Re:

I deal with copyright the same way people in the 20s dealt with Prohibition. Just because its the "LAW" doesn't automatically make it Divine Mandate that everyone must follow.

I bet you do! Morally-deficient, piratical folks like yourself are Pirate Mike's bread & butter. Congrats! I mean, why respect other people's rights? Other people should work hard and spend money to create wonderful works so you can just take them for free. Why pay someone, right? They can just sell other stuff like t-shirts. 'Cause everyone who works in music and movies can just sell t-shirts. Why should you pay for the product that they actually make, you know, the product that you have to have so badly that you're willing to violate other people's rights? Yeah, you're the picture-perfect Masnickian pirate. Good on ya! I bet Pirate Mike is so proud of you.

Re: Re: Re:

Are you really that dumb? I hate to repeat the same as many people have been saying a lot, but you shills doesn't seem to understand some basic facts; infringement =/= theft because no property is LOST, if you cannot understand that you are just demonstrating how dumb you are.

And again you are missing the point, how weird huh? You start from the mistaken presumption thatIntelectual property can be subject to the same economic laws as material objects.

Ideas are non material "objects" that do not get destroyed when consumed like material objects and whose "production" does not require direct consumption of material inputs as what economists call "services", do.

Only what is legally and materially OWNED can be stolen. To own something you need a legal right claiming PROPERTY. Property can be meaningfully defined if the owner can enforce the right to EXCLUDE others from consumption/use. Thats why copyright infringement CANNOT be equated to theft.

Now, "piracy" is mainly caused by the lack of legal options, as many people have said; "WE DONT WANT STUFF FOR FREE, WE JUST WANT THE SUFF", meaning; if the content cartels dont update their business models, infringement will increase, as Valve exec pointed out some time ago; "Pirates Are Just Underserved Customers", the content cartels just want to keep their obsolete models by pushing for draconian and utterly stupid legislation that in the end is destined to fail.

Gotta love how trolls always attack the character but refuse to adress the actual arguments.

Re:

The fact that his first domain name was seized put him on notice that he was infringing.

Infringing a foriegn law.

If you ran a website with a Saudi domain name and the Saudi government seized it you would quite happily say to yourself "Saudi Law doesn't apply in the US so I can restart with a US domain and be OK"

The fact is he has committed no crime under UK law (otherwise he surely would have been prosecuted here- a lot cheaper and quicker than extradition).

What has happened here is that the US content industry has used the badly worded extradition treaty between US and UK to pull a legal trick.

The treaty says that extradition should be more or less automatic provided the act was illegal in both countries. Now criminal copyright infringement exists as an offence in both countries - but it isn't the same offence. (different criteria and different penalties). The UK court has gone wrong by not checking that his behaviour is an offence under UK law.

Of course if it was then he would have been prosecuted here.

The extradition is a nonsense. Extradition is for fugitives who cannot be prosecuted in the UK because they have committed no offence here but can be prosecuted elsewhere because they have. It is ridiculous to use it for act committed in the UK.

Re: Re:

If you ran a website with a Saudi domain name and the Saudi government seized it you would quite happily say to yourself "Saudi Law doesn't apply in the US so I can restart with a US domain and be OK"

I certainly wouldn't whine later when Saudi Arabia went after me criminally. And I certainly wouldn't get away with Pirate Mike's hilarious "it wasn't willful!" defense. LOL! If Saudi Arabia seized my domain name and told me it was because I was violating Saudi Arabia criminal law, obviously I would then be on notice that I'm breaking the law there.

The fact is he has committed no crime under UK law (otherwise he surely would have been prosecuted here- a lot cheaper and quicker than extradition).

What has happened here is that the US content industry has used the badly worded extradition treaty between US and UK to pull a legal trick.

Wah. A pirate got busted. Grow up. A lot of whining, and not enough just admitting that a punk pirate got caught. Sorry, guys, but your pirate friends are breaking real laws and there's real consequences. How many tens of thousands of dollars did O'Dwyer make again?

Re: Re: Re:

"I certainly wouldn't whine later when Saudi Arabia went after me criminally"

Moron. So...if, on your Saudi Arabian domain name website, you posted an article praising homosexual romance or for criticising Islam, you then wouldn't complain when the Saudi government came after you criminally...only to put you to death?
Because, since you obviously don't know, Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for homosexuality and criticism of Islam.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Wah. A pirate got busted. Grow up. A lot of whining, and not enough just admitting that a punk pirate got caught. Sorry, guys, but your pirate friends are breaking real laws and there's real consequences.
Irrelevant. In this context I don't care about that. I only care about which set of laws he was "busted" under. (Actually he hasn't been convicted of anything yet so you are guilty of premature jubilation). People should be able to obey the law of their own country within their own country and not have to worry about some other country's laws.

How many tens of thousands of dollars did O'Dwyer make again?

H'mm - he's a student - living a student lifestyle. I don't see any evidence of great wealth - regardless of the fictional numbers perpetrated by the copyright lobby.

Re: Re:

Yeah, 'cause recognizing someone's property right in a work that costs time and money to create is the same thing as segregation. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but pretty much every nation on earth has copyright laws. Keep dreaming, pirate. Keep following your pirate leader, Comrade Masnick.

This point here being that just because something is in the law, doesn't mean it is right. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, segregation is a fairly bad example - not least because there are various different types, and in some places it was never legal (apparently, in the UK, the last segregation that was legal was segregating English and Irish people in the 14th century).

So, you pointed out some of the reasons why this was a bad example here:

Yeah, 'cause recognizing someone's property right in a work that costs time and money to create is the same thing as segregation. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but pretty much every nation on earth has copyright laws.

There seem to be two points here; one that copyright is better than segregation because it involves giving people a property right, which is needed due to the time and money invested (which isn't quite true for copyright in many places, as it covers everything from major feature films to doodles). The second being that every nation on earth has copyright laws (which is mostly true, thanks to WIPO and the UN forcing the Berne Convention on everyone).

So, my response was to point out a better analogy: Slavery. Slavery involves giving people a property right (over their slaves), and recognises the time and money that goes into capturing and training a slave. Similarly, at some point or another, seems to have been legal in most countries (although there's some debate as to whether or not it was ever technically legal in the UK).

Thus, your arguments supporting the current copyright regime (and opposing criticism etc. of it) are arguably flawed as precisely the same arguments could have been used to oppose the abolition of slavery.

That said, slavery, while illegal everywhere in the world, is rampant, with more people being held in slavery than ever before. Perhaps we should legalise it again - creating a new property right, to reward slavers for their hard work? I imagine you could find a BASCAP-style study to say that it will generate $bns in new revenue, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and save us from recession.

Re:

"If you actually cared about property rights ... then you'd be glad this punk is getting his comeuppance."

So you genuinely think being ripped away from his family and country, possibly for years, is a proportional punishment for providing links? Jeez you're a sick bastard. Would you feel so vindictive if it was someone a friend or family member of yours?

Re:

Since he wasn't breaking the law in the UK, and he lives in the UK, why should he care what the law is in the US? Once again, if we all have to live by every other country's laws, then we will suffer the worst totalitarian mess ever.

Re: Re:

Re:

Laws can be changed, and an oppressed population will only put up with tyranny for so long. Government only rules by the consent of the people. You are just upset because you know your days are numbered. Truly you are a fool, and a bad person to boot. You should be ashamed of yourself. GOVERNMENT ONLY RULES BY THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE; PEOPLE PLEASE WAKE UP AND LOOK AT WHAT THE LEADERS WE ELECTED ARE DOING.

Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

For instance, here's another case where people were illegally putting parking boots on cars (complete with non-reflective parking signs) and then getting people to pay to avoid having their cars towed:

Re: Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

i dunno, if it's mean to do what the name Sounds like it's meant to do, then having such a law sounds like a good idea.

it also sounds like the UK law to that effect is rubbish.

'conspiracy to defraud' would require several people organized to take actions which would result in fraudulent payments to them (that came out worded worse than i hoped) so... i guess it's not fraud if the other guy catches on Before you manage to actually defraud him? or perhaps if you're knowingly part of such an action despite not being the one who Actually took the fraudulent actions (failure to report at minimum?)

so... yeah. sounds like something designed to bust people when someone catches them 'in the act' before their plan resolves...

but yeah, i'm not a lawyer and it does sound like, whatever it's Supposed to do, it is broken if it applies in this situation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

"Conspiracy to defraud" requires an "agreement between 2 or more people to dishonestly deprive" someone of something they have, might have, or might have had, or to injury a proprietary right.

It's an evil, vague, broad law. It also can cover situations where you agree to do something when doing that thing would be perfectly legal. Various people (including the UK Law Commission) have recommended abolishing it, but while the government accepted it was bad when rewriting UK Fraud law, they decided to leave it there "just in case".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

Not wuite, although it certainly seems that way sometimes. It's a law designed to get people who were involved in attempts at fraud (for example, failed and tracable phishing attacks or events such as those shown on The Real Hustle).

It doesn't make sense to convict o'Dwyer, based on the fact that there were no attempts to claim that he had the rights to the linked shows.

Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

Actually they were given access to the evidence in the first place, took some of it away for analysis, and then were given all the evidence once the English prosecutors decided not to press charges.

The couple involved sued the police and FACT to get their stuff (documents and computer equipment) back, but while a lower court sided with them, the Court of Appeal said it was perfectly fine for them to have all the evidence in case they wanted to bring a private prosecution. Now, some 2-3 years later, they finally have. Evidence laws seem to be rather different in the UK.

Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

Copyright law is worldwide, Einstein. Has been for HUNDREDS of years. It is impossible to take you morons seriously when you purposely bury your head in the sand about that.

Not quite true. While the Berne Convention came into force near the end of 1887, (only 125 years, not really "hundreds" of years ago), and was an attempt to get international copyrights recognised, the US didn't fully ratify it until 1989; barely 23 years ago.

Law is never worldwide. Law is jurisdiction-specific. So if the US want to extradite someone from England or Wales, they need an England+Wales law to do it. The current relevant law says that the conduct must be a sufficiently serious crime (fairly complex definition) in England+Wales.

While in the extradition hearing the judge relied on s107(2A) CDPA (which is a copyright law), that law has never been successfully applied in this circumstance, and never been challenged in a higher court - so the judge is using his best guess as to what it means. He may be wrong, which is why the case is being appealed.

However, the case referenced in the original post didn't involve copyright law at all, the offence claimed was the odd "conspiracy to defraud"; so your issue with copyright being around for hundreds of years isn't relevant.

As for "a mega-corporation like Google ... exploiting artists", if you're a regular TechDirt reader you will no doubt be familiar with the numerous examples of "media" companies such as film studios doing just that - exploiting artists. As it happens (beware, facts incoming), the parent companies of the 6 Hollywood studios making up the bulk of the MPAA/FACT have something like $550bn in assets, compared with Google's $73bn. Relatively, Google isn't all that "mega".

That said, I don't find the term "pirate" at all derogatory. I'm quite proud of being a Pirate and do most of my work under that banner.

Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

For those like our AC here treating the UK like an American colony is just dandy. What bothers and amazes me here is that segments of the British power structure seem to find being an American colony just fine. Or, if you like, the undeclared 51st state.

The American Congress has been trying to apply laws extraterritorially for years. It's only recently that they've actually seem to have succeeded. That's more to the credit (??) of the content industry who have become well organized globally and encourage this sort of silliness but it amounts to the same thing.

That's what ACTA and TPP have been all about, too. Expanding US law and attitudes particularly where it applies to the content industry to the rest of the world.

As the American Empire declines in every other way it's expanding in this one. I wish it made sense but that's the way it works.

Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

For those like our AC here treating the UK like an American colony is just dandy.

Ha ha! The tables have turned! The UK must now pay tribute to the content king, Chris Dodd! And don't even THINK about staging the Thames DVD Party, because they own the idea of protesting via tossing symbolic items into a harbor, lake, river, or tributary.

Re: Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.

From the same article:

“This was not a case brought using copyright law. The interest groups involved couldn’t present a case of copyright infringement and instead decided to press for the use of the common law offence of “conspiracy to defraud,” Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye told TorrentFreak.

Until a big nation stands up to the US on any issue, they will continue to push their bullshit agenda where it is not wanted and anti US sentiment will continue to grow. Do the US government not realise just how hated they are becoming?

First off, the guy isn't being deported. Deportation as a modern term refers only to removing foreign nationals from a country. He is being extradited by the US, not deported by the UK.

Second, let's try to clear things up: His site on the surface appears "illegal enough" for charges to be laid, perhaps ever passing a grand jury. Don't you think that is enough? If the charges raise up to the level that permits extradition under treaty rules, shouldn't the UK do it?

Third, the very nature of the internet is that this guy offered his services to everyone, including Americans. If he didn't want to be subject to US law, perhaps he shouldn't have offered his service there. There are plenty of things that he could have done to limit the exposure of his site to the US marketplace.

You cannot simply draw a line and say "it's legal here" and then sell it somewhere else. Pot sales are legal in Amsterdam. Should that make it legal everywhere else no matter what?

Re:

others can say it better than i, (and have, Repeatedly) but your 'third' point is so insane once you actually stop and apply reality to it as to leave one questioning your mental capacity.

it would place Everyone under the restrictions on the internet in china, Everyone under Shia(sp?) law... the list goes on. it's crazy and stupid.

and MOST countries are small enough that their people realise how Moronic the US habit of locking things to not be visible outside their own country is. 'oh, sure, let's deny over 90% of the viable market for our product legitimate access to it, that'll reduce piracy!' is stupid logic. everyone else goes 'it's the internet. the point is to be able to access stuff.'

I'm sure someone else will explain this better than i (again) but the level of... frustration... i experience when i run into this kind of stupidity over and over again... it is too high.

Re:

Third, the very nature of the internet is that this guy offered his services to everyone, including Americans. If he didn't want to be subject to US law, perhaps he shouldn't have offered his service there. There are plenty of things that he could have done to limit the exposure of his site to the US marketplace.

Zimbabwe just made trolling on the internet illegal, and the punishment is death. Please report to Zimbabwe for summary execution at your earliest convenience.

Unfortunately, it seems Hollywood chose to listen to the Emperor instead of Obi-Wan. As Yoda would say:

"Unfortunate, this is. But not unexpected. Unable to be contained, culture is. A lesson Hollywood has not learned. Do, or do not. There is no try. Adapt they must, if they wish to survive. Outdated and irrelevent, copyright has become. A tool of the dark side. Heed it not."

Re: Just thought I would leave this slightly off topic news here....

The main points from Justice Winkelmann's judgment:
* The search warrants used under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act were unlawful.
* The FBI's removal of "clones", or copies, of computer data offshore was unlawful.
* Any clones remaining in New Zealand must stay here.
* The attorney-general must provide Mr Dotcom with any clones currently held by New Zealand police.
[...]

Justice Winkelmann also ordered the data that was seized from Mr Dotcom be analysed to determine what is and is not relevant to the charges he faces.

She has ordered that:
* An independent and "appropriately experienced" High Court lawyer conduct the review.
* Copies of electronic data containing only relevant material be provided to US authorities.
* All items deemed not relevant be returned to Mr Dotcom.
* Any copies of relevant data which are provided to the US authorities must also be provided to Mr Dotcom.
* The auditor-general request from the US authorities the "voluntary" return of the clones removed from New Zealand.

It also seems that Rick Shera an IP specialist solicitor expects an appeal to the NZ Court of Appeal (wasn't aware that this could be appealed especially since Judge Helen Winkelmann is the Chief High Court Judge though seeing as it's only a one party judgement makes sense.. though still strange) before July 4th.

Even then I myself cannot see much difference especially since the warrants are now confirmed to be general warrants. Using general warrants in first place by police was just blind stupidity, or kowtowing to US DoJ thuggery (or both). Didn't they think anyone would notice? It's one of the first things ever checked by defence solicitors or any solicitor for that matter.

'Somewhere behind this case lie the powerful vested interests of the content industry'

this is exactly the reason why there is now in the UK, one of the worse Digital Economy Acts to be made law (after 1 month consultation. yeah, i reckon) in the so-called free, democratic world. the US entertainment industries that have pushed the hardest and will gain the most, have instigated this crock of shit. be prepared for it to spread, in one way or another, everywhere. ACTA may well be all but dead but with this bill, it isn't needed in the UK